I read an MSNBC article today about Miers, Bush's newest Supreme Court pick. It was about how frustrated conservatives were about the pick, since they know so little about her legal philosophy.
I found the article both encouraging and frustrating at the same time. I found it frustrating because it spoke of conservatives as a single, monolithic body. It glided quite subtly across, what I believe, are different kinds of conservative. So I sensed at least three types of conservative in the course of the article:
1. strict constructionists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, like Clarence Thomas.
2. Gary Bauer was mentioned, who would be the religious, Dobsonian wing of conservatism.
3. small government capitalists, economic conservatives, almost libertarians.
These are not necessarily the same person! I have deep issues with how Christians in category number 2 so mindlessly glide into the other two, indeed into 4. Republicanism in general. So someone opposes gun control because they're anti-abortion. What sharp minds the typical American has!
So while I don't know what Miers will be like, I am at least hopeful. I figure if Clarence Thomas doesn't like her, that's a relief. As far as I'm concerned Thomas represents a legal philosophy that has no spirit--I'll call it zombie jurisprudence. The "prepared" conservative jurists the right wanted him to pick to me are as bad as any liberal judge "making law from the bench." The difference is they allow inhumanity because of lack of law or immoral law.
As far as Bush's spending, my main problem is with the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about that now. The financial levee on that one broke when Bush invaded. I suppose in theory I prefer smaller government to bigger, but the ideal size for me is whatever is necessary for government to do what it needs to do. I think New Orleans should be rebuilt smartly. A good president would find ways to do it without breaking the bank. And since I have no idea how to do that, Bush and I are on about the same level.
As far Bauer, Dobson, and friends, Dobson has hesitantly endorsed Miers. That works for me for now--mostly because of the hesitancy. If he endorses her hesitantly, then maybe she's my kind of moderate conservative. I'll call it a "Methodist conservative" for now. That's probably about where I am.
Time will tell...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree that it's stupid that people can't get over the cut and dry conservative sterotypes. On the other hand, I suppose there aren't too many socialist evangelicals. :)
As far as Bush's pick, it seems that Miers is like the minor league pitcher brought into the majors that nobody has ever seen throw. Personally, I think Bush likes playing games with the left and the media by picking no-namers. The Senate doesn't have the big judicial record to over-analyze, like they did with making Roberts out to be a racist. I wish they had a camera in Ted Kennedy's office, to see them working feverishly for dirt than can bring up during the hearings.
This is totally off topic but since this is about left/right issues. Alan Colmes has Joel Osteen's book at #1 on his reading list. http://www.alan.com/index2.html I couldn't decide whether or not it's fair to laugh at that.
As for socialist evangelicals, take a look at born-again believers in Europe. To them it seems crazy NOT to be at least partially liberal and a follower of Christ.
I'd laugh if this lady ends up like the pick of GW's daddy. Souter seemed like a staunch conservative but he had little record. He gets the seat on the bench and, SURPRISE! He's far to the left!
If GW did that, he will have succeded in moving the court to the left and not the right. Such a fitting capstone to an administration that has often done the opposite of what they've intended.
Ha! I just saw a Fox News discussion on Miers. The Republican strategist so much as said (read between the lines) that if Miers was really Bush's friend, she would withdraw her name from the running. The idea is that she may not be informed enough on constitutional matters to ballast other minds on the court... She might divide the right wing part of the party...
I don't know whether she's competent or appropriate or not, but I'm liking her more and more...
I'm confused. Someone is anti-abortion, and against gun control. This is inconsistent. someone else is proabortion and pro gun control. This is consistent?
It seems to me the argument easily goes both ways.
As for the nominee for SCOTUS, I can only hope and pray that she,if confirmed, will legislate and not make law.
You're right--it would be just as illogical to conclude a pro-gun control stand because someone was pro-abortion. In terms of similarity, an anti-abortion/pro-gun control stance makes some sense because both positions are pro-life. But in the end, these are distinct issues and it's not clear to me that there is a straightforward cause-effect relationship between the two. I just think the brains of people all around the world tend to shut down when you're talking religion or politics.
Post a Comment